Use of co-design methodology in the development of cardiovascular disease secondary prevention interventions: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing evidence to support the use of co-design in developing interventions across many disciplines. This scoping review aims to examine how co-design methodology has been used in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) secondary prevention interventions within health and community settings. METHODS: We searched four academic databases for studies that used the co-design approach to develop their intervention. Studies were included if consumers (adults with CVD) and key stakeholders (e.g. clinicians, service providers) were involved in the co-design process. The review focused on methodology rather than traditional study outcomes; therefore, co-design processes and activities were extracted and evaluated against a selected co-design framework. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included in this review. Studies were implemented across various settings with consumers and stakeholder groups most frequently consisting of patients and healthcare professionals, respectively. Most studies specifically stated that they used a 'co-design' approach (n = 10); others used terms such as participatory action research (n = 3), user-centred design (n = 3) and community-based participatory research (n = 2). Although there was variability in terminology, co-design processes, and participants, all studies adhered to the key principles of consumer engagement. Predominant co-design activities included semistructured interviews, focus groups, co-design/development workshops and advisory group meetings. Intervention effectiveness was assessed in eight studies showing mixed results. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an overview of how the co-design approach has previously been used in the development of CVD secondary prevention interventions. These findings provide methodological considerations that can guide researchers and healthcare services when implementing co-design to develop feasible and acceptable interventions that can improve outcomes for CVD populations. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patients, service users, caregivers, people with lived experience or members of the public were involved in this scoping review. This review article was written by academics who have undertaken a significant amount of co-design work with consumers and stakeholders.

Frequent hospital presenters' use of health information during COVID-19: results of a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: High-frequency hospital users often present with chronic and complex health conditions and are at increased risk of serious morbidity and mortality if they contract COVID-19. Understanding where high-frequency hospital users are sourcing their information, whether they understand what they find, and how they apply the information to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is essential for health authorities to be able to target communication approaches. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of 200 frequent hospital users (115 with limited English proficiency) informed by the WHO's "Rapid, simple, flexible behavioral insights on COVID-19". Outcome measures were source of, and trust in information, and knowledge of symptoms, preventive strategies, restrictions, and identification of misinformation. RESULTS: The most frequently cited source of information was television (n = 144, 72%) followed by the internet (n = 84, 42%). One in four television users sought their information from overseas news outlets from their country of origin, while for those using the internet, 56% relied on Facebook and other forms of social media including YouTube and WeChat. Overall, 41.2% of those surveyed had inadequate knowledge about symptoms, 35.8% had inadequate knowledge about preventative strategies, 30.2% had inadequate knowledge about government-imposed restrictions, and 69% believed in misinformation. Half of the respondents (50%) trusted all information, and only one in five (20%) were uncertain or untrusting. English-speaking participants were almost three times more likely to have adequate knowledge about symptoms (OR 2.69, 95%CI 1.47;4.91) and imposed restrictions (OR 2.10 95%CI 1.06; 4.19), and 11 times more likely to recognize misinformation (OR 11.52 95%CI 5.39; 24.60) than those with limited English. CONCLUSION: Within this population of high-frequency hospital users with complex and chronic conditions, many were sourcing their information from less trustworthy or locally relevant sources, including social media and overseas news outlets. Despite this, at least half were trusting all the information that they found. Speaking a language other than English was a much greater risk factor for having inadequate knowledge about COVID-19 and believing in misinformation. Health authorities must look for methods to engage diverse communities, and tailor health messaging and education in order to reduce disparities in health outcomes.

Patients' perspectives of factors influencing active participation in healthcare interactions: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand patients' perspectives of factors influencing their active participation in healthcare interactions. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative approach informed by naturalistic inquiry was used to secondarily analyse interview and focus group data from a study that co-designed a communication-skills learning resource for patients. The COM-B Behaviour Model was used to explore factors that influenced patient participation in healthcare communication. Thirty-nine participants took part in either individual interviews (n = 25) or a focus group (n = 14). RESULTS: From the COM-B domains nine factors emerged: capability (personal characteristics, patient language and culture, emotion or stress arising from the interaction), opportunity (time constraints, empowering actions, patient-clinician relationship, having a support person present) and motivation (preparation prior to the interaction, perception of patient-provider power imbalance). CONCLUSION: Many of the factors influencing active patient participation are modifiable, suggesting barriers to effective communication are not insurmountable. Clinicians and patients both play a role in improving communication; effective strategies include agenda setting, cultural and communication skills training for staff, and teach-back. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians must be aware of the factors influencing patient active participation in healthcare interactions. Healthcare organisations should consider providing communication-skills training for clinicians so they can implement strategies to overcome communication barriers with patients.